Objective This study aimed to evaluate the experiences and preferences of ophthalmology fellowship applicants utilizing a virtual interview format. Design Present study is a cross-sectional study. Subjects All fellowship applicants to Wills Eye Hospital during 2020 to 2021 application cycle were included. Methods A nonvalidated, online survey was conducted, and surveys were distributed at the conclusion of the interview process after rank list submission. Main Outcome Measures Applicant demographics, application submissions, interview experiences, financial considerations, and suggestions for improvement of the virtual interview process were the primary outcomes of this cross-sectional study. Results Survey responses were received from 68 fellowship applicants (34% response rate). Thirty (44%) applicants preferred in-person interviews, 25 (36%) preferred virtual interviews, and 13 (19%) would like to prefer the option to choose either. Fifty-five of 68 (80%) applicants attended the same range of interviews for which they received interview invitations. Reduced costs were reported as the highest ranked strength of virtual interviews in 44 (65%) applicants, with a majority of respondents (68%) spending less than U.S. $250 throughout the entire process. The highest ranked limitation for virtual interviews was limited exposure to the culture/environment of the program in 20 (29%) respondents. On a scale of 0 to 100, the mean (standard deviation [SD]) satisfaction level with the fellowship application process was 74.6 (18.3) and mean (SD) perceived effectiveness levels of virtual interviews was 67.4 (20.4). Conclusion Respondents were generally satisfied with virtual interviews and noted reduced costs and increased ability to attend more fellowship interviews as the strengths of the virtual interview format. Limited exposure to the culture/environment of the program was cited as the most important limitation.

IMPORTANCE Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined.OBJECTIVE To determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals.

No abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient-identified barriers to care in those non-compliant with retina appointments during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria included non-compliant patients from March 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020. Ultimately, 1,345 patients were invited to complete a 14-question survey. A retrospective chart review correlated clinical and demographic information. Univariate logistic regression, independent-samples t -test, and Pearson correlation coefficient identified differences among subgroups. RESULTS: Of the 1,345 patients, 181 (13.5%) completed the survey. The most significant barriers to care included fear of COVID (76/181; 42.0%), wait times (21/181; 11.6%), and costs (11/181; 6.1%). Patients who got their COVID information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (7.8 ± 2.4) and televised news (8.0 ± 2.0) had higher levels of fear. Finally, patients with diabetic retinopathy and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores had greater concerns of COVID ( P = .034 and P = .047, respectively). CONCLUSION: This survey study suggests fear of COVID-19 is a prominent new barrier to retinal care. Identifying those at risk for loss to follow-up can guide practices as the pandemic continues. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina . 2021;52:526–533.]

Background: Ameloblastoma may present a significant treatment challenge in the locally advanced, recurrent and metastatic setting. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) can identify targetable genomic alterations to aid in treatment. Methods: Ameloblastoma samples were sequenced using hybrid-capture based sequencing. A systematic literature review was performed to examine outcomes in studies employing targeted treatment in ameloblastoma. Results:We reviewed 14 cases of Ameloblastoma using CGP. There were six patients with activating BRAF mutations, five with PIK3CA, five with SMO, four with FGFR2, one with EGFR, and one with ROS1. All cases were MSI stable and the median TMB was 2.5 mutations/Mb. A separate literature review of clinical outcomes in ameloblastoma showed a predominance of at least partial response to targeted treatment (7/12 cases). Conclusion:CGP is helpful in identifying specific driver mutations in patients with complex ameloblastoma. Targeted treatment has been employed with success in achieving treatment response.